January 11, 2013

No charges will be filed against David Gregory "despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust."

The clarity of the violation of this important law....

Why is the law important? If Gregory clearly violated the law, but there is no interest to be served in prosecuting him, doesn't that prove that the law is not important? If the precise thing that he did — which is clearly what is defined as a crime — raises no interest in prosecution, how can we be satisfied by letting this one nice famous man go? Rewrite the law so that it only covers the activity that the government believes deserves prosecution, so there is equal justice under the law.

All the examples of people who got caught in DC with this law, if they stopped for a medical appointment at Walter Reed or if they were on their way to do their qualifying shoot for the Marshals... none of those are examples where it was an issue of promoting public safety.

If there is an official statement to this, I'm betting that there are a few lawyers saving it up for future use to sway a jury if nothing else.

But whatever... maybe they'll take the blindfolds off of all the quaint and pointless "justice" statues.

Would anyone have standing for a civil case? And if nobody has any standing, then why should it be a criminal law?

That aside, if The Law is only for little people then I must be a medium...'cause I've had charges against me thrown out and I've had others prosecuted. Is throwing charges out really that unusual of a thing?

I have to admit to being a little surprised. I would have expected a plea to something minor and then for people to laugh it off afterwards. This is a public demonstration of the corruption of the legal system without even a fig leaf of cover.

as all expected, the pile of shit known as "David Gregory, journalist," will not be charged for violating the DC statute barring possession of large capacity magazines. he is much luckier than the serving soldiers and veterans who have been charged and convicted for the same offense. Clearly, a high Party apparatchik who is a pal of the Politburo cannot be charged like a prole or a kulak.

Worth noting is that it would have been easy to comply with the law and still show the 30-round magazine: tape the magazine in a jurisdiction where it's permitted to possess it, then show the clip during the interview with LaPierre. Sure, that doesn't have quite the production value of confronting him with the actual magazine, but it would fully serve the journalistic goal of showing the device to viewers. So what we have here was simple flouting of the law not for journalistic purposes but to enhance the gotcha aspect of the interview.

I don't normally like to be a contrarian at Althouse. But I'd like to posit a reason why David Gregory is not being prosecuted. He had a magazine for an AR-15, but no AR-15. And obviously no intent, nor even any ability to make use of the magazine.

If, perchance, Ann or Meade or I had borrowed an old duffel bag for a business trip to Washington, and in an unused pocket of the duffel bag there had been an empty AR-15 magazine, then yes. I'd expect that a prosecutor using sound discretion would not prosecute.

I have to say; I am all for the naming and shaming of David Gregory on general principles. And if there were to be a prosecution in this case, I'd be the first to admit the obvious merits.

One thing I have not heard about, is whether there have been people in D.C. who have been harshly prosecuted and punished under the many gun laws in existence there. Have there been instances when prosecutorial discretion has been abused?

"If, perchance, Ann or Meade or I had borrowed an old duffel bag for a business trip to Washington, and in an unused pocket of the duffel bag there had been an empty AR-15 magazine, then yes. I'd expect that a prosecutor using sound discretion would not prosecute."

The guy who let Gregory off (and aquantance of Gregory and his wife) says ..."The clarity of the violation of this important law"and "NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity-magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any federal official."

So not only did NBC break the law. They KNOWINGLY broke the law after being told so.

While in the midst of typing my comment just above, Mary Beth posted an article from the "Inquisitr.com" website that details somebody being charged by D.C. prosecutors under circumstances that are as egregious -- or non-egregious, if you prefer -- as David Gregory's.

So I consider my question as having been substantially answered; and yep, the D.C. prosecutors have a lot of explaining to do.

Nathan noted that his office’s decision in this case was also influenced by “our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States.”

Still, Nathan said other, legal means should have been used to demonstrate Gregory’s point.

So a First Amendment purpose ( for which there are other, legal means ) is a good reason, but a Second Amendment purpose is not.

If, perchance, Ann or Meade or I had borrowed an old duffel bag for a business trip to Washington, and in an unused pocket of the duffel bag there had been an empty AR-15 magazine, then yes. I'd expect that a prosecutor using sound discretion would not prosecute.

And you would be wrong. People have been prosecuted in Washington D.C. for doing almost exactly what you cite as an example.

When CJ Roberts asked for more money for the federal judiciary, you wanted to abolish laws that provide plaintiffs bases upon which to make claims rather than give the judiciary any more money! You're such a hypocrite, and that was just a few weeks ago! Why WASTE any further resources on a ridiculous prosecution of the crime, if not just to prove a political point. You're for "wasting" resources when it suits you.

"A thousand people need to go to Washington with a thousand of identical magazines. Flood the zone, hold them like candles from one of these fucking "vigils" and see what happens."

Already posted something like that on my facebook page. The million magzine march. Thousands of people converge on the Mall, holding up empty large capacity magzines in one hand, and a sign in the other, "I'M NOT DAVID GREGORY! Arrest Me!" With other signs present, "Large capacity magazines don't kill people. Evil people kill people!" When thousands of citizens violate the law simultaneously, the law breaks down. There aren't enough police in DC, nor the court capacity to handle the crowd that would show up. And, if they decided to break it up with tear gas or rubber bullets- the next American Revolution wouild break out.

Same time, NRA, to prove how ridiulous the law is, should file a writ of mandamus with the DC courts to order the DA to do his job and prosecute.

If, perchance, Ann or Meade or I had borrowed an old duffel bag for a business trip to Washington, and in an unused pocket of the duffel bag there had been an empty AR-15 magazine, then yes. I'd expect that a prosecutor using sound discretion would not prosecute.

Chuck, I would like to introduce you to James Brinkley, who was arrested by the DC police and prosecuted by the DA -- for having two fifteen-round handgun magazines (legal where he lived) locked in a box, which in turn was locked in his trunk. He had no ammunition and thus the magazines could not possibly pose a threat to anyone.

He was arrested and charged with two felony counts of possessing illegal magazines. Thankfully he had a friendly judge who ruled in his favor. The prosecutors refused to admit their mistake and still do.

"But I'd like to posit a reason why David Gregory is not being prosecuted. He had a magazine for an AR-15, but no AR-15. And obviously no intent, nor even any ability to make use of the magazine.

If, perchance, Ann or Meade or I had borrowed an old duffel bag for a business trip to Washington, and in an unused pocket of the duffel bag there had been an empty AR-15 magazine, then yes. I'd expect that a prosecutor using sound discretion would not prosecute."

There is a guy named Meckler with a very similar story to your hypothetical.

In September 2011, former Army Specialist Adam Meckler was arrested at the VFW in the District because he happened to have a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition in his bag. The veteran of both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was jailed and later accepted a plea deal, which he now regrets.

No gun !!!

He was just back from A-stan and trying to get his paperwork straightened out.

No prosecutorial discretion. There are multiple cases with similar stories.

There can be no justice in a land where laws are written so broadly that its easy for anyone to be charged with a crime if they fall out of favor with the ruling class. And those same laws are ignored as in this case, because the offender is in effect a member of the ruling class. When the enforcement of the law becomes arbitrary and capricious, you can be sure that you are being ruled by a tyranny.

So, the effect being Bobcat Goldtwait filming baby-death-by-shotgun fantasy (Netflix "God Bless America" I watched less than 10 minutes and saw this) or J. Garafalo being what she has become, the goal is to not become bitter nor so engulfed in hatred nothing else matters.

I repeat my suggestion: gun owners should have a demonstration in DC, and a bunch of them --who won't be harmed by an arrest -- should bring the exact same magazines, tacked onto signs bearing messages, making their brandishing the magazines a First Amendment exercise. Lets see what happens.

Folks have been prosecuted and convicted for similar things to David Gregory's stunt.

I never thought he, or NBC, would be prosecuted, but the D.C. autorities should at least have had the grace to harrumph and point out have gravely disappointed, etc. a.s.f., they are about NBC's flagrant disregard and disrespect of their ordinances.

"Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States,especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President's speech to the nation about them."

What trust? You just said you won't arrest people, who clearly violated the law. In fact, a person who asked if it was illegal, was told it was illegal by your office, and then went ahead and broke the law anyway. Where's the trust in that situation?

Argh! How difficult is it? We even have a clever symbol for the law in which she is blindfolded. Equal protection, not simply a pithy phrase, the darn cornerstone of our civilization, fer pete's sake. So then no one should be jailed for possessing that type of firearm accessory. My head wants to explode and my heart is breaking for our country ... cracking up.....rule of law.. Rule of law, I hardly knew ya...

I'm no expert, but it does seem that this thing called prosecutorial discretion is usually used for the wrong reasons, i.e., cronyism, favoritism, elitism, fear of the loudest activists, etc., but rarely common sense. Maybe that's just the reporting, but it seems that way.

The DC AG did the right thing. Prosecuting Dick Gregory would not have protected the citizenry. The AG's job is not to be cleverly dogmatic about the rule of law. He/she is supposed to keep the law working.

You don't think all those people prosecuted under this law are not calling up their attorneys? You don't think those people were wronged? An appeal is just the first step. If they win that, then expect a civil case. It would take time, but that would be just. I'm not saying it will succeed in the overly white biased DC, but it would in more civil locales.

But of course! The laws are to keep the little people in line while the big people get in first.

If you forget you have ONE bullet somewhere in your car and cops stop you in D.C., well sorry bubba but you did wrong.

And if you are some high brow liberal 'special' person, you can have banned magazines or if your bodyguard didn't have his paperwork (as Ted Kennedy's did with his SUBMACHINEGUN in D.C.) then you skate!

Laws are to keep the little people in line so the big people can get in first.

Only if you accept that the law is foolish for outlawing possession of the clip alone, since unless the discretion is used in every similar case of no intent, it is a weapon for the government to wield at will, which it does for all kinds of unconstitutional reasons.

In our 'three felonies a day' world -- and that's just before you get out of bed -- there is no such thing as equal justice. Justice is dispensed, or not, at the whim of the prosecutor, depending on whatever factors he chooses, and his discretion is beyond review.

Bob Ellison said..."Discretion is the argument here. Confront it."The DC AG did the right thing. Prosecuting Dick Gregory [sic. - I actually wondered how the activist Dick Gregory had gotten into this until I realized you meant David Gregory. Or at least I think you did...] would not have protected the citizenry. The AG's job is not to be cleverly dogmatic about the rule of law. He/she is supposed to keep the law working."

Interesting turn of a phrase; "He... is supposed to keep the law working." Even if it needs to be ignored in certain otherwise clear-cut cases.

Bob, I innocently tried the "prosecutorial discretion" angle mid-way through this comments thread. And I was politely, firmly -- and correctly -- urged to consider some of the other D.C. prosecutions under this law.

One thing about "prosecutorial discretion"; it forces the prosecutor, instead of the accused, to answer the hard questions.

And now, based on the answers that flowed in response to my suggestion (some posted just an instant before I hit "Publish Your Comment", I'd say that the prosecutor really does have to answer some questions.

Selective law enforcement. People fear a private monopoly and practices, but they welcome an authoritarian monopoly and practices. They voluntarily exchange their liberty for submission with benefits. Just a footnote in an [inevitably] cyclical history.

how about this for cronyism?from gatewaypundit.com original has Nathan smiling and hugging Gregory's wife--Politburo connections trump all.

.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan issued a lengthy letter explaining why there will be no prosecution of David Gregory despite a finding that there was a clear violation of the law.

Legal Insurrection discovered that AG Nathan is a family friend of David Gregory and his high-powered attorney wife, Beth Wilkinson. Nathan and Wilkinson participated together in a charity mock trial for the Washington, D.C. Shakespeare Theatre Company in 2011.

David Gregory’s wife Beth Wilkinson and family friend Irvin Nathan at a theater fundraiser.

"He had a magazine for an AR-15, but no AR-15. And obviously no intent, nor even any ability to make use of the magazine."

-- The law doesn't care about intent; in fact, the law was specifically written to not care about the intent. Simple possession is enough for a crime (like drugs above a certain threshold, other people's children without their knowledge, etc.)

Would anyone have standing for a civil case? And if nobody has any standing, then why should it be a criminal law?

That aside, if The Law is only for little people then I must be a medium...'cause I've had charges against me thrown out and I've had others prosecuted. Is throwing charges out really that unusual of a thing?

I've never personally been the target of a criminal probe, but sure, prosecutors have wide discretion to allocate their resources as they see fit, prosecuting some cases, and declining others. To a certain extent, that's naturally going to lead to similarly situated people being treated very differently, since the exercise of prosecutorial discretion isn't really limited by written laws or standards.

Given the types of innocuous cases that have been aggressively prosecuted by DC in the past, though, this is a really shameful declination. They have an aggravating factor here (they asked the police and were told it was illegal) that makes this much worse, much more culpable, than the good-faith inadvertent cases the prosecutors have gone after in the past. If you're not going to prosecute a knowing and willful violation of the law, and are going to prosecute negligent violations, there's something seriously screwed up about the way you're exercising that prosecutorial discretion.

This is particularly so with this kind of malum prohibitum, where the underlying violation isn't anything bad at all -- public policy ought to incline in favour of coming down hardest on those who know something innocuous is actually prohibited, and do it anyway.

Sorry, when I write "negligent," that's wrong. I suspect the only intent requirement in the law is intent to possess (or something similarly minimal). I mean "negligent" in the sense that they didn't violate it on purpose. Should just have said "inadvertent"

1. Gregory was supposed to be on vacay the week following the incident!2. Plans changed, Obama gives Gregory exclusive!3. Gregory asks about Lincoln moment!4. Gregory and Obama children attend same school! WITH ARMED SECURITY BTW!5. Prosecutorial Discretion!6. Rule of Law - FAIL!

Matthew Sablan began by quoting me:"He had a magazine for an AR-15, but no AR-15. And obviously no intent, nor even any ability to make use of the magazine."

Matthew then commented:"-- The law doesn't care about intent; in fact, the law was specifically written to not care about the intent. Simple possession is enough for a crime (like drugs above a certain threshold, other people's children without their knowledge, etc.)"

I was not talking about defeating the charge, Matthew, but rather how the prosecutor might justify his discretion in not charging. But clearly through several posts just above, I have very much revised my comments in light of information that in the past, in other "no intent" circumstances, D.C. prosecutors have gone ahead with charges.

And so I have joined your your torch-and-pitchfork crowd, Matthew. Count me in.

The DC AG did the right thing. Prosecuting Dick Gregory would not have protected the citizenry. The AG's job is not to be cleverly dogmatic about the rule of law. He/she is supposed to keep the law working.

On the contrary. Nailing Gregory to the cross would have sent a message to the little people that if the High and Mighty are not excempt don't even think about trying to get away with it. If its a bad law the DA in good conscious should not prosecute anyone under it. If it is a good law then Gregory's actions are egregious since he knew full well that he would be violating it but did it anyway with the expectation of not suffering from his actions. Book him Dano.

In 1772, Samuel Johnson composed a legal brief to help his friend, James Boswell in a case of Scottish law. It contains the following passage which applies today:

To permit a law to be modified at discretion, is to leave the community without law. ... He that is thus governed lives not by law, but by opinion; not by a certain rule, to which he can apply his intention before he acts, but by an uncertain and variable opinion, which he can never know but after he has committed the act, on which that opinion shall be passed. He lives by a law, if a law it be, which he can never know before he has offended it.

So if 100 or so of us show up in DC to protest this, exercising our 1st amendment rights, carrying a 30 round mag each... Obviously we will not be arrested or he will use his prosecutorial discretion and not prosecute us right? No Rifle, no ammo, just 1st amendment expression (just like the prosecutor noted in his statement)...

What if its not 100, and just 5 of us?

or just 1?

Nope. You (without a badge) with a mag in your duffel or a loose 9mm round in the corner of the bag left over from some range time, you would be prosecuted just like the other 105 people that were prosecuted in 2012

He had a magazine for an AR-15, but no AR-15. And obviously no intent, nor even any ability to make use of the magazine.

The statement from the AG said that "no specific intent is required" for this to be a violation of the law. So it doesn't matter that he didn't have the rifle, and it doesn't matter what his intent was.

All that apparently matters is who your friends and political allies are.

The public interest to be served here is that if you do not enforce the law against Gregory, you are saying that the law is not in the public interest and should be repealed. Gregory exhibited a blatant disrespect for the law.

Why should any jury convict a law-abiding citizen who has one of these? What about someone who didn't even know of the law? What about a collector who has one tucked away and may not even remember? What about someone who inherits one?

What about someone who has one of these in their home, and would never use it unless he/she picked the weapon up in self-defense?

Perhaps the law should be rewritten to add the possession of a 30-round mag as an aggravating factor for weapons charges, whether for illegal possession or improper use. As the law now stands, some military museum somewhere is probably a "criminal".

The fact that the DA could write that there was no public purpose to the prosecution is frightening - such an attitude clearly implies an utter disrespect for the law of the land and equal treatment under the law.

If I were on a jury in that area, I would now refuse to convict anyone of this charge unless the charge was in conjunction with criminal behavior associated with a weapon.

The truth is that a 30 round mag absent a gun into which it fits is about as dangerous as light hammer at most.

A few comments from around the web:oNot even a slap on the wrist.o"Prosecutorial Discretion"oLetter to Gregory's lawyer: tell your client of our "deep concern."oLet's call it the David Gregory exemption.oDavid Gregory is better than you.oNot guilty by virtue of importance.oSome animals more equal than others.oSomewhere, John “There are Two Americas” Edwards is smiling.oLaws are for the Little People.oAmerica's “nomenklatura.”oThis teaches us all a valuable lesson – they have power, you don’t.

Mayor Vincent C. Gray and Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan welcomed today’s decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld key provisions of the District’s firearms-control law. The provisions upheld include many enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia in response to the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, which struck down the District’s handgun ban.

A panel of the appeals court upheld the law’s requirement that handguns be registered, its ban on assault weapons and its ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The court also ordered various other provisions of the law to be considered further by the federal trial court, saying that the factual record must be developed more fully to rule on their constitutionality.

“Today’s ruling upholding common-sense gun regulations is an important victory for the District of Columbia,” said Mayor Gray. “It upholds our government’s authority to pass reasonable gun laws, and it supports the basic registration requirements as well as the bans on assault weapons and large magazines -- each of which are key components of the District’s battle against violent crime.”

My comment: Evidently the magazine ban isn't as key a component in their battle against violent crime as AG Nathan told the court (under oath, I presume).

So if Sean Hannity waved around a 30-round magazine on TV, and afterwards it turned out that his wife was friends with the DC Attorney General, the Lefties here would have no problem with charges not being filed, right? You wouldn't make accusations of cronyism and "old white boys" protecting one of their own, right?

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

@Fr: Not sure if Greta is a good choice - she's not one of the Hated Others (TM) of the Left. The best choices would be Hannity, Rush, Beck, and O'Reilly.

I'm sure that the resident Lefties here would have no problem if this happened to the Koch Brothers. Right? I mean if the Koch Brothers just happened to have a friend who knew the AG, and they just happened to NOT be charged with a crime after committing a criminal act, that would be OK, right? All in the name of Journalism?

Kirk brings up another great point. Adam Meckler and David Gregory did exactly the same thing. However, Meckler was unaware that he had broken the law, whereas Gregory KNEW that he was breaking the law.

Isn't intent one of the critical pieces when determining prosecution and punishment? Isn't there a difference in penalties between someone who intentionally performed an act versus someone who did it accidentally?

It's hard to come to any other conclusion but this: Gregory has JUICE, and Meckler does not.

For the Lefties who say things like, "Who Cares?", I'd like to know: What other laws DON'T matter? Just this one?

Gregory could have, and protesters should, remove the bottom plate from their magazine. This allows the spring and follower to drop out of the magazine. The base plate can then be re-installed. One now has a non-functional assemblage of magazine parts, NOT a magazine (although it looks like one). This takes about 2 minutes an requires the strength and mechanical abilities of a small child. Gregory and his network must be remarkably arrogant, ignorant and/or obtuse not to have done this.

If, perchance, Ann or Meade or I had borrowed an old duffel bag for a business trip to Washington, and in an unused pocket of the duffel bag there had been an empty AR-15 magazine, then yes. I'd expect that a prosecutor using sound discretion would not prosecute.

In what sense would this pocket be "unused," Chuck? And did you really think this descriptor would advance your argument?

Knowledge giving Article! I appreciate you. I completely agree with you. If we talk about current scenario then it is must be update. I enjoyed reading. I would like to visit more for more queries.Houston traffic accident